And the PS4 APU isn't specialized? I've read the word 'specialized' coming from PS4 APU articles about eleventy-million times now.

"It's just different". I know you better than that and if you read that comment from someone else you'd find it silly.

Well I already described how its different.
-It has Esram
-It has concurrent read/write capabilities.
-It has the capability to read and write data while the GPU is busy doing compute.

The GPU in the PS4 is simply a modified off the shelf GPU, and the modifications are in regards to reading to and from the CPU and GPU, something the leaked SuperDae doc also say the One GPU can do as well.
The PS4 takes AMD's traditional Garlic and Onion buss's and adds more of them, that's all.

Well I already described how its different.
-It has Esram
-It has concurrent read/write capabilities.
-It has the capability to read and write data while the GPU is busy doing compute.

The GPU in the PS4 is simply a modified off the shelf GPU, and the modifications are in regards to reading to and from the CPU and GPU, something the leaked SuperDae doc also say the One GPU can do as well.
The PS4 takes AMD's traditional Garlic and Onion buss's and adds more of them, that's all.

MS may have reacted but PS4 is in control

Well I already described how its different.
-It has Esram
-It has concurrent read/write capabilities.
-It has the capability to read and write data while the GPU is busy doing compute.

The GPU in the PS4 is simply a modified off the shelf GPU, and the modifications are in regards to reading to and from the CPU and GPU, something the leaked SuperDae doc also say the One GPU can do as well.
The PS4 takes AMD's traditional Garlic and Onion buss's and adds more of them, that's all.

This is why your other post sounds retarded...because you normally explain things more thoroughly like the above.

This is why your other post sounds retarded...because you normally explain things more thoroughly like the above.

You must have missed my earlier post...

I agree about them being so similar, in fact the more I look into it they are so similar its crazy, they do things differently but get the same results. Take bandwidth, the Ps4 can read or write at 170gb/s but not both at once.
The Xbox One can read AND write at 68/102 gb/s. Even though the PS4 looks faster on paper, its not as multi tasking, end result, it averages out the exact same speed over 2 cycles.

Much has been made of the Ps4's compute, with its 18 cu's, but again, the One mitigates this by allowing for other tasks to be done via Move engines while compute is taking place in the GPU. Again, a wash.

And last but not least the Onion and Garlic bus's which Sony "solidified" so that the GPU had cache access to the CPU , also possible on the One as the GPU can write directly yo the level 2 cache of the CPU.

Well I already described how its different.
-It has Esram
-It has concurrent read/write capabilities.
-It has the capability to read and write data while the GPU is busy doing compute.

The GPU in the PS4 is simply a modified off the shelf GPU, and the modifications are in regards to reading to and from the CPU and GPU, something the leaked SuperDae doc also say the One GPU can do as well.
The PS4 takes AMD's traditional Garlic and Onion buss's and adds more of them, that's all.

From my understanding the PS4 GPU can do concurrent read/write as well concurrent GPGPU and normal GPU functions in parallel.

Could you provide some links that show these benefits are fact supported by the X1, and any statistics that show how these efficiencies can make up the 50% raw CU performance benefit that PS4 has over the X1 ?

From my understanding the PS4 GPU can do concurrent read/write as well concurrent GPGPU and normal GPU functions in parallel.

Could you provide some links that show these benefits are fact supported by the X1, and any statistics that show how these efficiencies can make up the 50% raw CU performance benefit that PS4 has over the X1 ?

You cant do concurrent read/write if you only have the one bus, this is where to some extent garlic and onion comes as separate buss's they can do a bit of work when it comes to talking between the CPU and GPU without going through the memory.

The Xbox One spec (Im only going of VGleaks, you can see all the bus details there), show that the One has two separate bus's one that goes to the Edram (which can be either read or write at 102gb/s), or the traditional 68gb/s main memory.

The GPU can read at 170 GB/s and write at 102 GB/s through multiple combinations of its clients. Examples of GPU clients are the Color/Depth Blocks and the GPU L2 cache.

The GPU has a direct non-coherent connection to the DRAM memory controller and to ESRAM. The GPU also has a coherent read/write path to the CPU’s L2 caches and to DRAM.

For each read and write request from the GPU, the request uses one path depending on whether the accessed resource is located in “coherent” or “non-coherent” memory.

On top of that, the specific reasoning given for the move engines is..

The advantage of the move engines lies in the fact that they can operate in parallel with computation. During times when the GPU is compute bound, move engine operations are effectively free. Even while the GPU is bandwidth bound, move engine operations may still be free if they use different pathways. For example, a move engine copy from RAM to RAM would not be impacted by a shader that only accesses ESRAM.

Again, this also backs ups parallel buss's as cleary ESRAMGPU is one bus and DRAMGPU is another.

last but not least regarding the equivalent Onion and Garlic buss's on the PS4..

The GPU has a direct non-coherent connection to the DRAM memory controller and to ESRAM. The GPU also has a coherent read/write path to the CPU’s L2 caches and to DRAM.

As for real world performance..its all pie in the sky stuff right now.

Not unless they clocked it above 800 mhz. I think there may be very little real difference though. All depends how much that OS of MS's get in the road.

From what I've read on unbiased tech sites I seriously doubt that the Xbone is more powerful. At best equal. I think youre just spouting pure speculation ( and a bit of wishful thinking?) at this point. And you are a hardcore Xbox kind of guy afterall so not exactly impartial. lol

The eSRAM is going to have trouble enough negating the advantages that fast GDDR5 RAM has, it is not near enough to put the Xbox One GPU on par with the PS4 GPU. Even with a slight OC it wouldn't be enough.

The Xbox One GPU would have to be clocked at 1200MHz to reach the same throughput of 1.8 TFlops as the PS4. This isn't happen with a console design and goes against the near silent design with a peak TDP of 100w for the SoC Microsoft was bragging about.

Not to mention if this was the case Microsoft would have brought it up just like they did the transistor count, cloud and anything else they can say that they have more of than Sony. It is clear that MS is trying to keep the disadvantages of the Xbox One hidden.

The eSRAM is going to have trouble enough negating the advantages that fast GDDR5 RAM has, it is not near enough to put the Xbox One GPU on par with the PS4 GPU. Even with a slight OC it wouldn't be enough. The Xbox One GPU would have to be clocked at 1200MHz to reach the same throughput of 1.8 TFlops as the PS4. This isn't happen with a console design and goes against the near silent design with a peak TDP of 100w for the SoC Microsoft was bragging about. Not to mention if this was the case Microsoft would have brought it up just like they did the transistor count, cloud and anything else they can say that they have more of than Sony. It is clear that MS is trying to keep the disadvantages of the Xbox One hidden.

Excellent points. And yeah MS brags about the transistor count but never mention that the RAM is DDR3 (instead just say 8GB of RAM) and never talk about the GPU. The cloud which to me sounds like an attempt to compensate for weaker hardware (which it wont) and the transistor count is all I've heard MS talk about. Everything else in regards to the graphics hardware they seem to be hiding.

From what I've read on unbiased tech sites I seriously doubt that the Xbone is more powerful. At best equal. I think youre just spouting pure speculation ( and a bit of wishful thinking?) at this point. And you are a hardcore Xbox kind of guy afterall so not exactly impartial. lol

Im a hardcore tech kind of guy, and no, I'm not saying the Xbox one is more powerful, just that on the specs we have, it does a lot to mitigate certain advantage the PS4 has.

Originally Posted by Ryunosuke

The eSRAM is going to have trouble enough negating the advantages that fast GDDR5 RAM has, it is not near enough to put the Xbox One GPU on par with the PS4 GPU. Even with a slight OC it wouldn't be enough.

How exactly, the biggest bandwidth soak is the WRITE BACK to the framebuffer.

The Xbox One GPU would have to be clocked at 1200MHz to reach the same throughput of 1.8 TFlops as the PS4. This isn't happen with a console design and goes against the near silent design with a peak TDP of 100w for the SoC Microsoft was bragging about.

And what are you going to do with all those extra CU's if the throughput is the same, which it is on the specs we have. The best a few extra shader ops per cycle. Triangle and texture fetch rates are equal.

Not to mention if this was the case Microsoft would have brought it up just like they did the transistor count, cloud and anything else they can say that they have more of than Sony. It is clear that MS is trying to keep the disadvantages of the Xbox One hidden.

Thats probably because it isn't anywhere near in raw numbers of teraflops anywhere near the 1.8tf compute capabilities on the PS4.

Do you know how that sounds?
Even without Kinect 2.0 the PS4 is as you put it, more advanced hardware
MS went the cheapest route to get similar specs which benefits you zero! and thrown a camera in for good for measure and charged $100/£80 more
No matter how you look at it, the Xbox 180 is a cheaper made PS4 with a camera bundled in that MS is passing Zero savings on to the customers.
That console is for one type of person, and it ain't rich people my friend.

Looking over the VGLeaks diagrams and pages again, I think you might be mistaking a little on the GPU being able to concurrently read and write.

I believe the 'GPU Memory system' portion of the diagram is just to represent the memory allocated for the GPU. I don't think it is meant to suggest that the GPU can read from the DDR3 at 68GB/s and write to the ESRAM at 102GB/s concurrently.

It appears the GPU can either write to this allocated memory at 102GB/s or read from it at 170GB/s but not both concurrently. I believe there is only a single 256-bit memory bus, same as PS4.

Originally Posted by mynd

Again, this also backs ups parallel buss's as cleary ESRAMGPU is one bus and DRAMGPU is another.

All the Move Engine is doing there is moving/copying data between the DDR3 RAM and/or ESRAM. It uses the bandwidth of the DDR3 RAM and/or ESRAM to achieve this; depends on how it is moving/copying the data around.

Yes, it does it in parallel with computation of the GPU but at a slower throughput and at the sacrifice of bandwidth if the memory is being used by the GPU at the time. This doesn't mean or suggest that the GPU can write to the ESRAM and read the DDR3 RAM concurrently.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.